Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned American immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. Deferred action is not full legal status but would come with a three-year, renewable work permit and exemption from deportatio...

Here, we conclude that the requirement that applicants demonstrate a “justifiable need” to publicly carry a handgun for self-defense qualifies as a “presumptively lawful,”
“longstanding” regulation and therefore does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee

If you have one that doesn’t actually violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

Strange that out of those hundreds and hundreds of cases where gun laws were upheld the Supreme Court hasn’t struck them down. Whether you agree or like it or not, the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of the gun laws.

I don’t disagree that those things have occurred and that lower courts have for the most part gone along with them. But it does not change the fact that they violate the Constitution, and it is allowed to stand because enough people (public opinion) care less about the letter of the Constitution than they do about whatever mime is pushing public opinion on any given day. And unfortunately the Court is rue (take Heller for example) to set them straight.

I would say that the judicial system has essentially green lighted the idea again and again that limits to the 2nd are legitimate and constitutional. I agree.

The words “shall not be infringed” are ver clear. Any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms that has been ruled Constitutional by the Court, is by definition a flawed ruling. Nothing in Article III of the Constitution gives the Court the latitude to ignore other portions of the Constitution, regardless of the majority public sentiment or political pressure.

There have been over 1300 second amendment cases since 2008 alone. In the vast majority of those cases, gun laws have been upheld. Judges were literally deciding if those laws violate the 2nd or not- and justices said no- i.e. that they were constitutional. I’ll bring up individual cases with the wording if you want.

No they weren’t. They were doing what was politically expedient.

Lower Courts are frequently overturned by the SCOTUS. How many of those 1300 cases were elevated to that level?

If you have one that doesn’t actually violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

Strange that out of those hundreds and hundreds of cases where gun laws were upheld the Supreme Court hasn’t struck them down. Whether you agree or like it or not, the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of the gun laws.

Again, how many of those cases went to the Supreme Court giving them the opportunity to strike them down?

It’s not being nullified. Congress passed the budget on 2/15/2019, in accordance with the Appropriations Clause
In 1976 Congress passed the National Emergency Act which authorized the president to spend certain of these funds if the president believed there exists a national emergency. Note Congress doesn’t have to believe it- only the president. This is what Congress wanted. This is what Trump is doing.

You need recent cases where they restrict guns? We just had one…we could make it a law that you must store your gun in a locked gun rack…we arent infringing on your right to own a firearm…its right there in the case.